1. The Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to quantifying and modifying a person's ability to perform tasks. More specifically, the system provides a method for the quantification of factors which affect human performance which can then be tracked and modified in accordance with what is learned about the person's performance when quantified, to thereby increase the person's ability to perform the tasks.
2. The State of the Art
The state of the art in job performance appraisal and improvement is typified by highly subjective analysis of performance. After the analysis, vague recommendations for ways to improve are then listed in the hope that somehow making a person aware of their shortcomings will lead to improvement. In other words, many people have had the misfortune to sit through performance appraisals where the only real objective is for management to somehow rank employees so as to be able to compare them to each other, often for the purpose of making such important career decisions such as promotions and bonuses. While comparisons can be useful, they ignore what can be real progress in a person's job performance which might not appear when typically examining the bottom line or some very broad performance criteria. For example, a supervisor will inform a person in some vague manner that job performance is "satisfactory" but that there is still room for improvement. This can be difficult when the person does not have any way to gauge their own performance when there are often many factors which can influence what that performance might be. Alternatively, the supervisor might state that job performance is "below average" but end up giving the same vague advice that the person needs to improve.
A person who is actively seeking for ways to improve might even ask the supervisor specifically how this can be done. The supervisor's reply is typically something along the lines of "develop a winning attitude," "improve communication," "increase business growth," or state that some goal is supposed to be the end result of "trying harder" and "thinking successfully."
The problem with these glittering generalities is that they are all too often accepted without question. Yet they do very little to improve performance, and most likely lead to discontent, confusion, tension, and lack of direction in employees. If performance targets are not specific or measurable, planning and execution of goals break down; evaluation sessions are tense and unproductive. Consequently, disappointment and turnover of employees increases as commitment to company standards falls off.
While the supervisor's task is by no means an easy one, it would be an improvement if a supervisor could identify specific and objective activities for an employee to follow which if performed as instructed, will enable the employee to achieve quantifiable goals. This is especially important when most performance characteristics appear to be subjective in nature. Unfortunately, most supervisors inadvertently become a source of the problem in performance quantification and improvement, instead of a solution. By using vague generalities, no one can disagree with them, but confusion is the result. This is because they are open to any reasonable interpretation.
A standard that lacks clarity and understanding is unmeasurable. Furthermore, a standard that is unmeasurable can't be controlled or achieved. The result is failure for the employee and failure of the business to succeed.
Unfortunately, even if the supervisor successfully identifies objective performance criteria and can even recommend tasks which can be performed to improve job performance, the next difficulty is in tracking the tasks to obtain an overall "picture" of job performance. In other words, even if objective activities have been identified, there is typically no way to track compliance until a sufficient amount of time has elapsed to determine if the end result or bottom line is being improved. Furthermore, keeping track of which objective activities are being performed by which employees to improve particular aspects of job performance becomes an unwieldy task for the supervisor rather quickly. The problem grows exponentially under layers of management.
It would therefore be an improvement over the state of the art to provide a system for enabling identification of performance criteria which are objective activities and standards that are measurable. When tracked, quantifiable standards can lead to improved job performance. This would be accomplished through assigning a particular objective activity to particular employees, tracking which objective activities have been assigned to which employee, and tracking compliance with the objective activities. It would be a further improvement if this could be accomplished using a new method for organizing a plurality of employees under multiple layers of management. This new method should also include the ability to track assignment of and compliance with more subjectively evaluated activities in a same manner as with objectively evaluated activities.